1. The conflicting decisions between these two courts probably came about because:
(i). the Tribunal first made the decision to declare me lacking capacity,
(ii). the Crown Court then began its process and things took an unexpected turn:
(ii). I then forced the Crown Prosecution Service into either abandoning the prosecution or declaring me not to be mentally disordered, if they wanted to remain within the confines of the Code for Crown Prosecutors. They did neither.
(a). The case already failed the public interest test, it would have been completely implausible to try me, if I was said to be so mentally disordered I could not even appoint a legal representative.
(iii). They were determined to continue the Process: I had forced too many serious errors in the Process of 2015, by which I was first sectioned. They wanted a safer Process on which to hang the Section by which they would detain me.
(iv). At the same time, the Tribunal did not want to change its opinion because I would then represent myself. That had proved problematic the previous year and was going to be even more problematic that year. To cite a few reasons:
(a). I asked the Court to summon witnesses, it unlawfully refused to do so, I had filed an appeal against that Decision when the Court declared me lacking capacity,
(b). I requested that an audio recording be made of the Hearing - to create an objective account of the Process -. Again the Tribunal refused but was unable to provide a cogent reason, again I was appealing that Decision when it declared me lacking capacity.
(v). When the Solicitor took control of my case, he stopped all my appeals and requests.
(vi). The Solicitor made the process safe and predictable: he would shepherd the process to an affirmation the justice of my detention. Indeed, that is what he was doing.